Dave Backman, Assistant United States Attorney and Paul M. Warner, United
States Attorney, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit
Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Allan Whitehead pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and was sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of forty-one months. Whitehead now appeals, claiming the
district court erred in calculating his base offense level. We exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

On June 19, 2003, a six-count indictment was returned against Whitehead
charging him with five firearms-related offenses and one drug-related offense.
On July 26, 2004, Whitehead pled guilty to Count 5 of the indictment, which
alleged that "[o]n or about April 18, 2003," Whitehead, "having been convicted
of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one (1) year, did knowingly
possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm, to wit: a 9 mm handgun;
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)." ROA, Vol. I, Doc. 1, at 3. A presentence
investigation report (PSR) was subsequently prepared that proposed the
imposition of a base offense level of 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)
because, in pertinent part, Whitehead "possessed a prohibited firearm described
in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)." ROA, Vol. III, PSR, Addendum at 1. At the
sentencing hearing on October 6, 2004, Whitehead objected to this base offense
level, arguing that, because § 921(a)(30) had been repealed, § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)
was inapplicable. The district court rejected Whitehead's argument, adopted the
PSR's calculations, and sentenced Whitehead to forty-one months' imprisonment,
a term at the bottom of the guideline range.

Whitehead renews his argument on appeal, contending the district court
should have imposed a lower base offense level because, at the time of his
sentencing, the firearm he was convicted of possessing was not, and indeed could
not have been, listed in § 921(a)(30). Because Whitehead's argument involves
the legal interpretation of § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) of the Guidelines, we review the
district court's ruling de novo. SeeUnited States v. Wilson, 416 F.3d 1164,
1167
(10th Cir. 2005).

Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines requires imposition of
a base offense level of twenty "if . . . the offense involved a firearm described in
. . . 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) . . . and the defendant . . . was a prohibited person at
the time [he] committed the instant offense . . . ." It is undisputed that
Whitehead was a convicted felon, and thus qualified as a "prohibited person," at
the time he committed the offense of conviction. Therefore, his appeal hinges on
whether the offense of conviction "involved a firearm described in . . . 18 U.S.C.
§ 921(a)(30)."

At the time of Whitehead's offense (i.e., April 18, 2003), § 921(a)(30)
defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon." That definition included
various specific firearms as well as firearms that bore certain specific
characteristics. It is uncontroverted that the firearm Whitehead was convicted of
possessing fell within this definition. Notably, however, § 921(a)(30) was
repealed after the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 108
Stat. 1796, expired on September 13, 2004 (approximately three weeks before
Whitehead was sentenced).

Whitehead contends that, because § 921(a)(30) had been repealed at the
time of his sentencing, § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) was effectively inapplicable and the
district court therefore should have imposed a lower base offense level. We
disagree. The language of § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), in particular its reference to
whether "the offense [of conviction] involved a firearm described in . . . §
921(a)(30)," was clearly intended, in our view, to focus on the circumstances in
existence at the time the offense of conviction was committed. SeegenerallyUnited States v. Gay, 240 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting that
Sentencing Guidelines, like criminal statutes, "are given their fair meaning in
accord with the manifest intent of the lawmakers.") (internal quotations omitted).
In other words, just as it asks whether the defendant was a prohibited person at
the time he committed the offense of conviction, § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) focuses on
whether, at the time the offense of conviction was committed, the firearm
involved in the offense fell within the definition of "semiautomatic assault
weapon" outlined in § 921(a)(30).

Our interpretation is bolstered by the fact that, in the most recent version
of the Guidelines Manual (i.e., the version that became effective on November 1,
2004), the Sentencing Commission made no changes to the wording of §
2K2.1(a)(4)(B). Thus, notwithstanding the repeal of § 921(a)(30), §
2K2.1(a)(4)(B) continues to require the imposition of a base offense level of
twenty if the defendant was a prohibited person at the time he committed the
offense and the firearm involved in the offense fell within the definition of
"semiautomatic assault weapon" outlined in § 921(a)(30). Had the Sentencing
Commission intended § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) to focus on the status of the firearm at
issue at the time of sentencing rather than at the time the offense of conviction
was committed, then the continued reference to § 921(a)(30) would be
superfluous, as would § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) itself.

For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not err in interpreting
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) or in applying that provision to Whitehead's case.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTESClick footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. After examining the briefs and appellate
record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.